Newly spawned fighter squadrons take the same positions as other squadrons and overlap very uglily.

Especially you can see that well at Despoiler, where sometimes 3 squadrons take up the very same position above the prow.

What's the point of something like this?

20161125094100_1.jpg (592.85 KiB) Viewed 1045 times

Please just bring back the previous behaviour. with refilling already existing squadrons instead of this... thing.It looks messy, it is confusing and is overall utterly pointless, why would you even modify the old system which was very logical, simple and neat?

Previous patch introduced a very good change with the ways ordnance moves around the battlefield, but now you've overdone it.

fighter squadrons stack now? do the effects stack? or only the visuali have mostly been playing SM yesterday and i noticed that the fighter skill bug for SM (only every second squad launched stayed) is fixed nowbut they dont stackgoodbye torpedo effectiveness vs chaos??

i have seen new formations for orks, the squadron breaking up with two guarding the back of the ship and three in the front , it looks pretty cool, but im too used to only launching fighter cover at the start, hadnt noticed overlapping

Ashardalon wrote:fighter squadrons stack now? do the effects stack? or only the visuali have mostly been playing SM yesterday and i noticed that the fighter skill bug for SM (only every second squad launched stayed) is fixed nowbut they dont stackgoodbye torpedo effectiveness vs chaos??

i have seen new formations for orks, the squadron breaking up with two guarding the back of the ship and three in the front , it looks pretty cool, but im too used to only launching fighter cover at the start, hadnt noticed overlapping

I honestly don't know.

When you have all squadrons fresh, recasting won't change anything.

But when you do lose some fighters, the skill spawns new squadrons, and from what I've seen it becomes wild, totally can't figure out how it works.

At any rate, it was the most stupid change of this patch imo, what was wrong with the previous system?It was logical, reliable and neat and tampering with it was honestly a piss poor idea. They could have used that time for something else.

I lost some fighters, then "replenished" them, and then after I used fighter skill next time they again got spawned, even though no fighters were lost from the previous wave. Not to mention they still *sigh* tend to stuck in one place.

Here again you can clearly see multiple fighters stuck one upon another,

20161129204855_1.jpg (469.4 KiB) Viewed 1003 times

the ss below shows just how many fighters can now be spawned

20161129204931_1.jpg (413.32 KiB) Viewed 1003 times

8 FULL squadrons stuck one upon another.

20161129210834_1.jpg (381.53 KiB) Viewed 1003 times

Please do fix this, preferably by returning to the old system. It's really annoying, and breaks the whole ordnance system.

would like some info on if this is just a visual bug or notwas playing vs an ork LC yesterday with 6 fighter squads around iti fired torpedoes from two directions, its fighters all went after the torps on one sidethe ones coming from the other side also exploded at about 6k away from the enemy ship

interceptors seem a lot more powerful now especially vs carriers sending bombers, a single launch bay seems to be able to keep 4 launch bays full of bombers awaynot sure if working as intended

I was able to check this subject with the Dev Team and this is a known bug we are working on.I should have answered this topic earlier, my apologies.

thank you, can you give some more info on how it is now (buggyly) workingfor example do decoy torpedoes still work? (deliberately missing with an escort firing so that they pas within 6k to draw them off so that the following volley can hit) will be running less bomber-fleets for now thanks for the info

The stack effect is not only a visual glitch. Fighters behavior is actually not working as intended, and it is faction-wide.We are not sure yet if this is why torpedoes explose far from their target (yes, that can unfortunately happen sometimes) but we are investigating the issue.